Not to mention that LCD res. and the difference between 10 and 12 megs is also hardly the end of the world. Last time I checked, a camera with a better LCD didn't take better pics.

And although my experience with the D300 is somewhat limited (I sell them so I've had a few hours shooting to get used to the menus and features, etc.), but the AF is definitely not faster (possibly slower and more prone to hunt) and both are very accurate, so I hardly see a difference there either. Personally I could care less about the number of points, especially considering the D300's cross type points are few and IMO not placed that well: the only thing I'm envious about the D300's AF is the ability to choose starting point manually then let it track the subject using other points. (dynamic AF or something like that?) Anyways, that's hardly worth the extra $500 IMO.

vadim_c
wrote:

jonrobertp
wrote:

you got a 4% raise? Or if your brother's car is just a bit faster
than yours? house? ok, some of it may be envy; or gotta have it
factor. Sometimes it's ok to want the best too. You know the
specs, and can diminish them if you like. 12/10megs, AF, LCD res.,
etc. Looks like people like me have to make up by getting
better/faster lenses if we like the crop format.

I like the "etc." part . Because everything else you mentioned
is, using polite language, not necessary.